The September 2005 Car And Driver as the results of their long term RX8 test. No link on their site yet.

They claim that the owners manual doesn't mention the oil consumption. My manual talks about it in a note on page 8-9. Are there different versions of the 2004 manual or are they just wrong?

They had to have a catalytic converter replaced and had the AC fix after some time in Arizona demonstrated the ACs weakness. No other major service items.

 

They got 0-60 of 6.6 when new and after 40,000 miles the 0-60 drop to 5.9

The 1/4 mile was 15.1 weh new and dropped to 14.6 after 40,000 miles. The braking from 70 mph went from 155 ft to 145 ft after 40,000 miles. I always that it was a myth that rotaries got better with age.

 

I wonder if they used their infamous 7K clutch drop to achieve the 6.6 time when new. Their original test article of the car in 2003 yielded 5.9, but that was a different car. But if they used the same launch technique for "new" and at 40K miles, that's a big improvement.

I really gotta put more miles on my car!!!!

 

man, the old it drinks oil thing is really getting old. Read the F'ing manual, besides, oil is so cheap if they are not running synthetic like me, who the f*&%k cares.

nice numbers, although to get that 5.9 0-60 requires a really aggresive launch, you can get mid 6's with a mild more realistic launch.

 

"For some reason our RX-8 guzzled one quart an average of every 3600 miles" speaking about the oil consumption.
\
This was their main complaint-------------
Oops ---and gas milage. 19 MPG
Not that bad for "Drive it like ya stole it"

 

They certainly didn't write a glowing review. It seems C & D and Autoweek, basically wrote the same article. Woe is us for mileage and having to add oil. The only relatively positive long term article is R & T's ongoing test.

 

For a 10 bester, i thought the review was very average on the car, but I guess it was mostly fair- except for the oil thing, and them claiming its not in the manual....

They did mention while they seemed to miss their long term 255 hp rx7, they said the frustrations with the 8 were significantly less....

 

Did you see a sidebar comment?

" For the money, I'd rather have this in my garage, than a 350Z "...or something like that.

All told, I think it was a great review.

 

Lame review from car magazine. I thought they made mountains out of mole hills. I do not need them loving car but car & driver review? Consumer Reports is fairer. They forgot to gripe about trailer pulling also.

 

Car and driver have very strange reviews. I remember a 350z beats a hardtop S2000, and several month later, a S2000 beats a 350z roadster. To me, it just feel like they are giving out top spots in all their comparison test.

 

They are trying to be politically correct. Remember, the car companies are all advertisers in the magazine. You have to make them all feel good at some point.

 

Huh - miss their long term RX-7?! how long term are they talking about? Sheesh, that car hasn't been sold in the US for 10 years now. They must have had at least 50 or 60 other cars in their long term test fleet since the RX-7 was in their mits.

But I do recall their long tem test review of th 3rd gen RX-7, it did have lots of problems. Later they had another RX-7 for a sports car shoot out with the Supra, 300ZX, Mitsu 3000, Porcshe 968 etc., and again their test RX-7 developed a problem (with transmission in that specific instance).

 

Send an email to the editor about the owner's manual omission. Maybe they'll print it in next month's issue.

 

Yeah, that was the one i was referring too- Sorry- I didn't mean to imply they currently have a long term one and obviously being an 8 owner know they havn't sold it in the US for 10 years .....

 

I have to agree with the holy-sun visor..., WTF!? :p

I thought it was a really good article. Hell, it was damn good. It was balanced. They talked about the good points, they talked about the bad points. That's what I'd want to see if looking for info before buying a car. That's part of the reason I came here in the first place. I wanted more info about the car, good or bad. Try looking it from a prospective buyer's POV.

It seemed that overall they loved the car but were sore about a couple minor things. I've seen quite a few posts about oil consumptioon on here (one of them might be mine), so why call it a bad article cause they mention it. It's in print, so what..., it's not something that hasn't already been said 1000s of times (in print and on this forum).

Sure, they didn't read the Owner's Manual, but how many owners actually read ALL of it instead of whatever chapter/page they're looking for? I've read most of it myself, but not all. If you write a letter to them about that, then tell them to bitch out the intern who was supposed to read the manual.

 

its funny this topic keeps coming up, as i have had no problems at all with my air conditioning unit...none. even where i live in the middle of the desert and temperatures in excess of 105 degrees daily it blows cold air within three minutes of starting.

 

11 quarts of oil in 30,000 miles is an issue on a rotary?

$20 on a $30k car?

:whatever:

 

and the stock tires on a performance car wore out after just 30,000 miles?

the horror.